6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handle.

19:31:06 [Jan]

6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handled.

19:32:02 [Jan]

TB: Perception that many stakeholders dont pay attention till last call...so perception is actually the First Look

19:33:20 [Jan]

6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long a spatent exclusion issues are handled. It is a cyclical process, so better terms probably exist.

19:33:34 [Jan]

6- Agree. Perhaps circling at CR should be possible as long as patent exclusion issues are handled. It is a cyclical process, so better terms probably exist.

19:34:17 [Jan]

GP: ISO has different terms

19:36:22 [Jan]

Process clarity: How should implementation integrate into process

19:36:23 [Jan]

7- Agree that waiting till CR is too late. Instead, there should be talk about implementation throughout with clear disclaimers that prior to CR, things can change so early implementers need to understand that.

19:36:43 [Jan]

Complexity of Process Document

19:36:45 [Jan]

8- Agree with all. See my comment #3

19:39:40 [Jan]

8- Hearbeat requirements much less important for public groups like AUWG

19:40:48 [Jan]

Speed of document production

19:40:50 [Jan]

9- These delays can be frustrating but not sure how to get around them. One possibility that could also help implementers could be the ability to lock certain parts of the document that the group feels is done. And to ensure this, the pub rules checker might be able to detect if there have been changes to locked areas.

19:43:00 [Jan]

Contextual/Social Framework: Desire for stable reference

19:43:01 [Jan]

10- Stable references are very important. It is very useful for an email in the list to be able to point to a stable section of a stable document.

19:43:03 [Jan]

11- On the other hand, if the area of a recommendation continues to evolve quickly, why should a document ever be "done"?

19:44:34 [Jan]

10- Stable references are very important. It is very useful for an email in the list to be able to point to a stable section of a stable document. Also required for reference from legislation and policy

19:46:32 [Jan]

Can we improve input from 'horizontal' groups (WAI, I18N, ...).

19:46:34 [Jan]

12- It is tricky to balance the need of WGs to move forward on specs with accessibility (I18N, security?) review, especially when it is well known that accessibility is easier when built in from the beginning. First public draft seems too late for the first review. Perhaps a review should occur on the requirements or similar document at the outset? And perhaps WGs could receive a checklist...

19:46:36 [Jan]

...of type of things that, when added to spec, will trigger accessibility issues so they will be less surprised when things are flagged later and perhaps be more likely to proactively seek accessibility input?

19:48:00 [Jan]

JS: Like waht

19:48:11 [Jan]

JT: Independece across modalities

19:48:15 [Jan]

JT: etc

19:49:27 [Jan]

JT: Everyone fairly satisfied with this as a set of commetns from AUWG?

19:49:31 [Jan]

GP: Great

19:49:34 [Jan]

JS: Yes

19:49:57 [Jan]

CE: Deadline?

19:50:01 [Jan]

JS: This friday?

19:50:09 [Jan]

Topic: 2. Publication update (Jeanne)

19:50:30 [Jan]

JS: No new news...I continue to push towards publishing, waiting for approvals.

19:50:51 [Jan]

Topic: 3. Need to update conformance report (Jan)

19:51:18 [Jan]

Topic: 4. Testing update (Jeanne)

19:51:28 [Jan]

JR: Re 3 nothing done yet

19:51:34 [Jan]

JS: Nothing new since last week.

19:52:21 [Jan]

JS: We have a new tool in W3C that is continuing to evolve. Takes our tests and provides a place to store them....people can query etc

19:52:35 [Jan]

JS: People can run test on their own tools

19:52:48 [Jan]

JS: THats the plan. It is still publically availalble.

19:53:33 [Jan]

JS: Key thing is that we have test cases to write...hundreds of them.

19:53:52 [Jan]

JS: For each we need a basic test, a failure test and then edge cases.